|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 11:59:08 GMT
Bullshit! I very much doubt you were exposed to the original versions. But that's not really the point. When you were a child, adults will have gone out of their way to ensure that you weren't exposed to things that society deemed unacceptable. That's what society does. Nothing has changed. Adults are still very protective of children. We don't all agree on what that requires. It would never have occurred to me that the wording in Dahl's books might need changing. That said, I'm in not the least bit concerned that it did occur to other people. Big deal! It's always been there. Even if you don't agree with the proposed changes, you have no grounds for suggesting something ominous is going on. That's complete nonsense. You're getting older and you don't like the fact that the world is changing from what you have become used to. It happens to every generation. Get over it, and stop ascribing malicious motives to those who simply don't have them. Bullshit My Noddy and big ears battled golliwogs The Little Match girl died The Little Mermaid didn’t have a happy ending My mid sixties copies of bond novels which i read in my very early teens referred to black men in ways Channel Four refuse to allow a war hero’s dog to be referred to YOU may have been brought up in a safe space. My parents alliwed me to see reality And i repeat what i said earlier. Disney happily disneyfied various stories to get a U rating for their films. I dont mind that because there is a bloody great disclaimer ‘BASED ON’ in tbe small print. Walt never intended his versions of the story to have the original ending and we all know that YOU said because he did that, it is ok to censor the original and present it AS the original, erasing the original from history. No it is not And as the publishers have found out, i am far from alone in wanting literature available as the author intended it to be not as some woke shithead thinks they should be allowed to pretend it was. You say it is fine to present censored work as the authors And now you have a ghoulish obsession with executing people. You were a BNP candidate in a general election. That worked out well for you, didn't it, Johnny? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 12:18:51 GMT
Orwell had no parallels with the virtue signalling , woke lefties today. Don’t insult the man . The stories have been changed because of cultural vandalism by woke lefties on the pretence that it’s for the public good. The old lefties wanted to curb censorship, the new lefties can’t get enough of it. What did Orwell have to say about Duchamp's painting a moustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Very little, I should think. Did he know? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 13:02:46 GMT
What did Orwell have to say about Duchamp's painting a moustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Very little, I should think. Did he know? I imagine he did. And if he didn't, that's telling in itself. Nobody was outraged enough to turn it into the storm in a teacup you pearl clutchers set out to create. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 13:56:35 GMT
I imagine he did. And if he didn't, that's telling in itself. Nobody was outraged enough to turn it into the storm in a teacup you pearl clutchers set out to create. No one can know everything. Not even you . I’m sure there is a lot of incidents that he didn’t comment on. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 14:51:02 GMT
I imagine he did. And if he didn't, that's telling in itself. Nobody was outraged enough to turn it into the storm in a teacup you pearl clutchers set out to create. No one can know everything. Not even you . I’m sure there is a lot of incidents that he didn’t comment on. Orwell wrote essays about art. He took the time to criticise Dali, but there's no criticism of Duchamp. Many art historians rate Cezanne and Duchamp as the artists who had the most influence on developments in the last century. Still, if you want to think he was unaware of Duchamp's work, you're free to do so. The rest of us will quietly note that Orwell didn't appear to care in the least about what Duchamp did in his reproduction of the Mona Lisa. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 15:21:56 GMT
No one can know everything. Not even you . I’m sure there is a lot of incidents that he didn’t comment on. Orwell wrote essays about art. He took the time to criticise Dali, but there's no criticism of Duchamp. Many art historians rate Cezanne and Duchamp as the artists who had the most influence on developments in the last century. Still, if you want to think he was unaware of Duchamp's work, you're free to do so. The rest of us will quietly note that Orwell didn't appear to care in the least about what Duchamp did in his reproduction of the Mona Lisa. But he did care about this”the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. “ No,amount of strawman fallacies , goal post changes and claiming that because he said nothing about one artist he did not mean what he had written in my post . Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 16:02:53 GMT
Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. You might want to rethink your strategy, Benny. Your pearl clutching has been all over the popular press in the last week. There's even a link in this very thread to a discussion of the subject on a right-wing tabloid news channel. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 16:07:01 GMT
Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. You might want to rethink your strategy, Benny. Your pearl clutching has been all over the popular press in the last week. There's even a link in this very thread to a discussion of the subject on a right-wing tabloid news channel. I quoted the view of Orwell . Someone you claim was one of yours, darling . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 27, 2023 22:15:57 GMT
Your example spectacularly fails You and I both know the Disnified version of the story has an artificially happy ending because the original versions of the stories are still out there and yes they were grim reading indeed. But I read them as a child and cannot myself see that i came to any great harm. My children saw the Disneyfied version as young children and got to see the originals when they were older. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe some material is unsuitable for children but i also believe i am a FAR better judge of when my own children are ready for the stuff held back from them earlier than the state ever could be but that is perhaps an argument for another thread as it will divert this one … But you state that because a company sanitises and gives a happy ending to a story they out out as their own it is perfectly acceptable to censor an original work and replace it with one less out of step with wokery, and pretend the woke version is the original. No. That is totally unacceptable Dahl’s publishing company have now backpedalled and admitted they will continue to produce his work in its original form and sell the censored versions alongside those as a separate work, identified as censored from the original. I’m ok with that. But the Lady Chatterley Trial showed the world how not to muck about with literature Bullshit! I very much doubt you were exposed to the original versions. But that's not really the point. When you were a child, adults will have gone out of their way to ensure that you weren't exposed to things that society deemed unacceptable. That's what society does. Nothing has changed. Adults are still very protective of children. We don't all agree on what that requires. It would never have occurred to me that the wording in Dahl's books might need changing. That said, I'm in not the least bit concerned that it did occur to other people. Big deal! It's always been there. Even if you don't agree with the proposed changes, you have no grounds for suggesting something ominous is going on. That's complete nonsense. You're getting older and you don't like the fact that the world is changing from what you have become used to. It happens to every generation. Get over it, and stop ascribing malicious motives to those who simply don't have them. Whoa 'society deemed unacceptable' Society has deemed no such thing as regards Dahl, some in society who have loud voices that are listened to by some others have done all the 'deeming' here. Society as a whole has deemed effectively very little because no one has asked society and where they have been asked are seen to be against what has been 'deemed' on their behalf. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 22:19:11 GMT
Bullshit! I very much doubt you were exposed to the original versions. But that's not really the point. When you were a child, adults will have gone out of their way to ensure that you weren't exposed to things that society deemed unacceptable. That's what society does. Nothing has changed. Adults are still very protective of children. We don't all agree on what that requires. It would never have occurred to me that the wording in Dahl's books might need changing. That said, I'm in not the least bit concerned that it did occur to other people. Big deal! It's always been there. Even if you don't agree with the proposed changes, you have no grounds for suggesting something ominous is going on. That's complete nonsense. You're getting older and you don't like the fact that the world is changing from what you have become used to. It happens to every generation. Get over it, and stop ascribing malicious motives to those who simply don't have them. Whoa 'society deemed unacceptable' Society has deemed no such thing as regards Dahl, some in society who have loud voices that are listened to by some others have done all the 'deeming' here. Society as a whole has deemed effectively very little because no one has asked society and where they have been asked are seen to be against what has been 'deemed' on their behalf. I wasn't aware that Dahl's works were public property. Are they? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 27, 2023 22:42:13 GMT
Whoa 'society deemed unacceptable' Society has deemed no such thing as regards Dahl, some in society who have loud voices that are listened to by some others have done all the 'deeming' here. Society as a whole has deemed effectively very little because no one has asked society and where they have been asked are seen to be against what has been 'deemed' on their behalf. I wasn't aware that Dahl's works were public property. Are they? My question is not as regards Dahl it is as regards 'society deemed unacceptable' which you used as some throwaway phrase indicating this is what the great British public want. We do not specifically know what they want because it has not been specifically measured. So Dahl's work cannot be deemed to be anything by Society, Dahl's publisher's can deem it or the owners but you specifically said society and society has done so no such deeming. If parents wish to not let their children read unacceptable, to them, words they can weed out the books they dislike and deem anything they want, I prefer to do my own deeming if there is no specific measure in Society and there isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 22:49:49 GMT
I wasn't aware that Dahl's works were public property. Are they? My question is not as regards Dahl it is as regards 'society deemed unacceptable' which you used as some throwaway phrase indicating this is what the great British public want. We do not specifically know what they want because it has not been specifically measured. So Dahl's work cannot be deemed to be anything by Society, Dahl's publisher's can deem it or the owners but you specifically said society and society has done so no such deeming. If parents wish to not let their children read unacceptable, to them, words they can weed out the books they dislike and deem anything they want, I prefer to do my own deeming if there is no specific measure in Society and there isn't. Okay, I'll happily rephrase and replace 'what society deems acceptable' with 'what the gammons don't want'. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 27, 2023 23:35:20 GMT
My question is not as regards Dahl it is as regards 'society deemed unacceptable' which you used as some throwaway phrase indicating this is what the great British public want. We do not specifically know what they want because it has not been specifically measured. So Dahl's work cannott be deemed to be anything by Society, Dahl's publisher's can deem it or the owners but you specifically said society and society has done so no such deeming. If parents wish to not let their children read unacceptable, to them, words they can weed out the books they dislike and deem anything they want, I prefer to do my own deeming if there is no specific measure in Society and there isn't. Okay, I'll happily rephrase and replace 'what society deems acceptable' with 'what the gammons don't want'. If the gammons are with the majority view it may seem churlish of me to point out that that is a democratic view. So far your 'society' seems to be you and a few others who deem all sorts of things for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 27, 2023 23:59:01 GMT
Okay, I'll happily rephrase and replace 'what society deems acceptable' with 'what the gammons don't want'. If the gammons are with the majority view it may seem churlish of me to point out that that is a democratic view. So far your 'society' seems to be you and a few others who deem all sorts of things for the rest of us. What does that mean in this context? You think that the publishers should have held a national referendum before changing a few words in their books? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 28, 2023 0:11:03 GMT
If the gammons are with the majority view it may seem churlish of me to point out that that is a democratic view. So far your 'society' seems to be you and a few others who deem all sorts of things for the rest of us. What does that mean in this context? You think that the publishers should have held a national referendum before changing a few words in their books? It was you that that claimed 'society deemed unacceptable' Dahl's literature, nobody else. And it appears that the publisher's have U-turned on this as 'society deemed it unacceptable' to edit Dahl's work and sell this Orwellian piece of work solely to the public. The publishers will now also sell Dahl's original classic work to the public after society deemed their initial Orwellian move as unacceptable. |
|
